It's very unlikely they will win this lawsuit. An overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrates that roundup is safe if you apply it according to the label.

One division of the WHO, the IARC, recently released a report declaring glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen". Note that three other major divisions of the WHO agree that glyphosate is nontoxic. But let's look at what this means:

We're talking about concentrations which applicators are exposed to, which is millions of times higher than consumer exposure levels. Let's keep that in perspective.

They state "limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans" - a modest increase in Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among agricultural workers, but that correlation was not seen in a larger study

Many otherwise benign substances are carcinogens at high doses - think about the effects of caffeine, ibuprofen, salt; dose matters. The IARC doesn't refer to dose, or exposure context, in their classification system

The report itself has recieved a lot of flak from the scientific community, which I'll show below

/u/Scuderia has done a great job of collecting peer-reviewed human studies including these large reviews: 1234.

We need to keep in mind that glyphosate/roundup is the world's most used herbicide for a reason. Farmers aren't stupid. It's highly effective at a low dose, you don't need to reapply it often, it degrades in a few short weeks, residue levels are very low for consumers, it doesn't bioaccumulate, and it is readily taken up by plants so it doesn't leach into water sheds to the extent other herbicides do. Organic farms are using pesticides which are often more harmful to the environment, and in many cases more harmful to humans. Even the strict German govt agrees glyphosate is safe.

When I worked with glyphosate as an herbicide applicator, I looked something like this. (Though we were more worried about the surfactants that we mixed into the glyphosate than the glyphosate itself.) We also never sprayed on days with more than a slight breeze, which is also advised by the label.

If you follow the instructions on the label, your exposure is going to be next to zero. I probably had less exposure in a season than most people who use it at home.

I use silwet (although not with any pesticide but with pathogen assays) occasionally for my research. The surfactant is definitely on my "don't fuck around while using" radar. Labels are there for a reason.

Can you cite scientific evidence which proves that glyphosate degrades as quickly as you're suggesting. Assuming this were true, how was it that high concentrations of this chemical could have been found in women's breast milk in Germany?

Regardless of whether a product is misapplied or not, any product which is proven to pose a threat to the public should be subject to outlawing since public safety far outweighs the commercial considerations involved. If Monsanto wants to ignore the dangers involved, then it should be held fully accountable and financially/criminally liable for the healthcare costs that result from the use of glyphosate.

There aren't any scientific reasons to be against proper use of glyphosate/roundup.

It's arguably the best herbicide out there. High efficacy, low toxicity, breaks down quickly, doesn't bioaccumulate, taken up readily. GE seeds are designed to resist gly for a reason. Massive yield increases mean that less farmland needs to be used, so we end up with fewer emissions, less water usage, less habitat destruction, and less pesticide use. No-spray would be a great idea but it would drastically increase emissions.

Not a single peer reviewed source in sight. And the product brochure you're citing is a company guide on how to apply it to crops. So when you claim "its not safe and should not be used on any food" why would you then cite a company brochure on how its safely applied to food?

These are all things you could of googled, but that's ok I don't mind if its to hard to use.

Its your claim to back up, not mine. Im not the one that has to prove anything here. Of the two of us, you're the one looking like the idiot.

Go ahead and eat your wheat. I am a gluten free dairy free vegan and would not want it any other way. In ten years you will find cell phones cause cancer too, but because you read they are safe Im sure you still use yours right up against your ear.

I am a gluten free dairy free vegan and would not want it any other way.

Cool man, just dont lie to others or yourself about the facts of your lifestyle choices. Always keep an open mind and never accept a claim without peer reviewed scientific sourced data to back it up. If you are incapable of accepting facts and changing your mind when your perceptions are proven false then I suggest you add a dose of maturity to your morning organic celery stick.

In ten years you will find cell phones cause cancer too

Can i ask you a couple questions? Are you aware of the physical difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, their respective physical interactions with biological tissues, and their positions on the electromagnetic spectrum?

So when the earth was flat because everyone else beleived it, even the scientists of the time, you would of gone along with it? Or what about when the proper medical procedure to cure any disease was to let blood? That was well know to be the 'cure all' amoung all the most practiced docters. Sometimes you have to think for yourself. The warmest spot in my house during the winter is in front of the microwave, so that where I hang out.

You can buy a little thing for your cell phone that blocks out the radiation. Can't remember the name currently. If you're interested though I could easy find out what it's called and give you information.

I went to his profile. Most of his comments were to dispel those against GM food, as well as rep hard. How one could have the time to write so many in depth comments on GM safety, outwardly ignore, an rudely dismiss any information about it being unsafe AND have real job because they're not getting paid for this really blows my mind. Why care so much about how others want to enjoy their food.

Frankly, given how successful the fossil fuel industry was at suppressing a worldwide freakout over climate change for literally decades, I'm okay with repeatedly questioning the safety of any product used on such a large scale.

Besides, in addition to being an herbicide, glyphosate is also an antibiotic and it's widespread use is contributing to antibiotic resistance. We'll probably all die of infection before cancer, anyway.

Plant biologist and a plant-microbe graduate student here at Cornell University and a non-profit plant research institute. If you think we would die from an infection as a result of glycophosphate usage then you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely no concern about it contributing to an superbug. It is ridiculous how much misinformation a non-scientist can spread.

This is a problem with people having pieces information but don't have the scientific background in the subjects to understand it and then throw out wild assumptions. Other people will absolutely no scientific background will be convinced and ect... This is why non-scientists don't make decisions on the safety of medicine. This is why you shouldn't listen to Jenny McCarthy and her rants about vaccines and autism.

There is no mass suppression about the safety of transgenic plants. It is not only constantly research but to be utilized, the plants have to get through three departments of regulation to get passed. In addition, years a field trials are needed. This isn't something that we nonchalantly throw out in the field. I think the scientific consensus on transgenic plant safety on it is higher than the scientific consensus on climate change.

This is like the marijuana is damaging or toxic to our brain argument. The scientific consensus is that it is safe (the only doubt is if you use outrageous amounts of it every day but that is still being debated) but no matter the research proving its safety, there will be people saying otherwise.

Safety is one of the major things accounted for when developing transgenic crops to be utilized in fields for consumption. Here is an example (story time)! In so many developing countries, the stable foods don't have the proper micronutrients. No matter how much the citizens eat, they will not get the proper nutrients. Micronutrient deficiency is horrifying. Crops are being developed that have more of these nutrients. However, there are many good reasons why they aren't out yet. One of the issues is that plants aren't perfect. Plants want to uptake minerals they need to survive but sometimes these minerals are so similar to each other than it takes in an analog or a substitute. Cadmium is one of these substitutes. Naturally, plants mistaken take them in. In an ideal world (with no soil contaminants) that wouldn't be an issue but cadmium is a soil contaminant (An even bigger issue for third world countries). If we were going to modify the plants to take in more minerals, an issue is that it may also take in more contaminants. Trust us, no one wants to make cadmium loaded plants. There is no way something like that would get past regulation if they wanted too. This won't be released until it is ready to be released.

I'm not sure whether or not to mention Poe's Law here or not because I honestly can't tell if he's joking or not. The extra punctuation and going directly to Nazi comparisons is kind of telling but other than that it's top shelf sarcasm.

A small part of the story that when you read in context of the bigger picture makes this seem insignificant. I'm the 1920s IG Farben and Exxon (Standard Oil of New Jersey) created a joint company called JASCO. During the deal IG Farben became the 2nd largest shareholder of Exxon stock, Standard got the right to license IG Farben patents in the US, IG Farben got the exclusive right to license synthetic rubber production in the US, and Standard got the hydrogenation technology from IG Farben.

The US supplied Nazi Germany with Tetra Ethyl Lead until 1940. Remember, the US nor her allies were NOT at war with Germany. Most countries were still worried about Russian aggression (and by their invasion of Poland and later Finland it was warranted).

Even further, the Germans used TEL gasoline in their airplanes and by 1939 had their own domestic plants. This allowed them to achieve a 87 octane rating, high enough for aviation fuel and to prevent knocking. Interestingly enough, Exxon used the hydrogenation technology to develop what is now AvGas or 100 octane rating gasoline. This lead to much better engine performance, including a 1,500 mile increase in range for our bombers. This was critical to our war efforts and helped our fighters dominate the skies over Germany.

Therefore, it is concluded that the use of Roundup herbicide does not result in adverse effects on development, reproduction, or endocrine systems in humans and other mammals. For purposes of risk assessment, no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) were identified for all subchronic, chronic, developmental, and reproduction studies with glyphosate, AMPA, and POEA.

To estimate potential human exposure concentrations to glyphosate as a result of working directly with the herbicide, available biomonitoring data were examined. These data demonstrated extremely low human exposures as a result of normal application practices. Furthermore, the estimated exposure concentrations in humans are >500-fold less than the oral reference dose for glyphosate of 2 mg/kg/d set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1993). In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate. Most reported associations were weak and not significantly different from 1.0. Because accurate exposure measurement is crucial for valid results, it is recommended that pesticide-specific exposure algorithms be developed and validated.

There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment. The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with published epidemiology studies, which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically significant, unbiased and non-confounded associations between glyphosate and cancer of any single etiology, and a compelling weight of evidence, support the conclusion that glyphosate does not present concern with respect to carcinogenic potential in humans.

Note that there was a weak but slight association with multiple myeloma that the authors suggest that further follow up is required. Also this was among applicators who inherently are exposed to significantly higher amounts of glyphosate than end product consumers.

Also a re-analysis of the AHS data failed to show the same link between glyphosate and multiple meyloma.

To examine potential cancer risks in humans, we reviewed the epidemiologic literature to evaluate whether exposure to glyphosate is associated causally with cancer risk in humans. We also reviewed relevant methodological and biomonitoring studies of glyphosate. Seven cohort studies and fourteen case-control studies examined the association between glyphosate and one or more cancer outcomes. Our review found no consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer (in adults or children) or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate.

In the opinion of BfR, the classification of glyphosate as "carcinogenic in Group 2A" (probably carcinogenic to humans) as published in the 20 March 2015 issue of the "Lancet" journal comes as a surprise, since other evaluations performed by supranational bodies such as the WHO-Panel of the Joint Meeting of Pesticide residues (JMPR, 2004), and also by national regulatory agencies such as the U.S.EPA had concluded the contrary, i.e., that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Unfortunately, the database on which the IARC evaluation is based is not known, since a background monograph that is usually produced by IARC following the evaluation meetings has not yet been released. Therefore, a comprehensive and scientifically sound consideration of the data and arguments that led to the IARC- conclusion is simply not possible at the moment.

Apparently not you. He cited multple legitimate sources including conclusions from multiple regulating agencies. You cited one article from SciAm which is not a peer reviewed source. You cited a magazine.

Glyphosate has a synergistic effect with the inert ingredients in Roundup and has been found to be damaging to human health.

The link you provided is looking at the effect of glyphosate plus a surfactant and its effect cell cultures. It's a stretch to claim that study shows that glyphosate and the inert ingredients are damaging to human health.

Most of the time it does, but the error in citing the study 75657....656 sourced is for that particular study they only looked at an in vitro assay which doesn't have the most power in predicting effects in humans.

In my original post there are several animal studies that tested the applied formulation and a very large epidemiological study looking at a group of people that has a high exposure rate.

in vitro studies are not used to classify human toxicity by any regulatory agency. They are helpful in some ways, but only if the chemical is going to reach cells at the concentrations you expose your culture to... but we have skin/mucous/kidneys/livers and consumers only ingest 0.5mg or so per day, which is several hundred times below the lowest level determined from mouse and rabbit studies to cause harm.

I'm just going to tackle one part of this, but Monsanto has never sued farmers for accidental cross pollination. They have sued farmers who have then INTENTIONALLY selectively bred crops with the desired traits, thereby breaking their contracts. Monsanto has won every single one of these cases in court (because breach of contract), and then they've donated the damages that they were awarded.

Thus there is no evidence that defendants have commenced litigation against anyone standing in similar stead to plaintiffs. The suits against dissimilar defendants are insufficient on their own to satisfy the affirmative acts element, and, at best, are only minimal evidence of any objective threat of injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ alternative allegations that defendants have threatened, though not sued, inadvertent users of patented seed, are equally lame. These unsubstantiated claims do not carry significant weight, given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.

The United States government forced Monsanto and several other companies to manufacture Agent Orange in the Vietnam war using Defense Protection Act.

President Kennedy approved spraying various mixtures that include 2,4,5-T, another powerful herbicide, 2,4-D, and other chemicals on the jungles of Vietnam. As U.S. involvement in Vietnam increased, so did the defoliation efforts. Agent Orange, consisting of equal parts of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, was introduced in 1965. Several chemical companies were compelled to provide the Army with Agent Orange under the Defense Production Act (Glasser 1986, 514). By the time its use ended in 1970, 11.2 million gallons had been sprayed over about 10 percent of South Vietnam’s land area.

Potential dangers of herbicide toxicity in general and of Agent Orange in particular had been known by Army officials for some time. Monsanto, one of the largest producers of Agent Orange, informed army officials that 2,4,5-T was a toxic substance as early as 1952. A 1963 Army review of toxicity studies of 2,4,5-T concluded that there was an increased risk of chloracne (a severe but often treatable skin condition) and respiratory irritations, and that the risk was heightened when the chemical was applied in high concentrations by inexperienced personnel.

If you want to be mad at the industrial chemical side of Monsanto, be mad at Pfizer, who now owns that segment of Monsanto. The Monsanto of today is not the same company that did all that damage decades ago.

Through a series of transactions, the Monsanto that existed from 1901 to 2000 and the current Monsanto are legally two distinct corporations. Although they share the same name and corporate headquarters, many of the same executives and other employees, and responsibility for liabilities arising out of activities in the industrial chemical business, the agricultural chemicals business is the only segment carried forward from the pre-1997 Monsanto Company to the current Monsanto Company. This was accomplished beginning in the 1980s:"

That being said, the primary stabilizing ingredient in Roundup is not. Because it's ethanol.

Yep, Roundup is ~30-40% ethanol. I found out when I had a patient who accidentally inhaled a significant amount (spraying his yard on a windy day) and was brought into the ER because he started blacking out. Turned out his BAC was through the roof, and some deep Google searching of the chemistry of the glyphosate molecule led me to discover that the most common stabilizing agent is ethanol. But since it's an inactive ingredient, the company isn't required to disclose that due to it being a trade secret.

So we just let pregnant women working on farms get sprayed with what's basically vodka without telling them that it'll screw their babies up. Don't you just love that? Because there's plenty of reports about these women having babies with birth defects that sound oddly similar to fetal alcohol syndrome, but nobody is connecting the dots due to it being a well-concealed "trade secret".

Anytime there's anything about gmo, there's always some top post defending them and laughing at antiGMO people. Something's off here

Whenever someone posts something about being anti-vaxx, there's always someone defending vaccination and laughing at anti-vaxxers. Must be a conspiracy by BIG FARMA to suppress the truth about vaccinations, rite?

Whenever someone posts something about being against evolution, there's always someone defending evolution and laughing at creationists. Must be a conspiracy by BIG SCIENCE to suppress the truth about evolution and creationism, rite?

Whenever someone posts something about the moon landings being fake, there's always someone defending the moon landings and laughing at the deniers. Must be a conspiracy by BIG NASA to suppress the truth about the moon landings, rite?

Or....... or maybe the evidence is actually on the side of GMO being safe, that most people who understand it are sick of hearing urban legends and emotionally-based fear-mongering being passed around, and that the antis are so stuck in their echo chamber that they're so blindly convinced they're right (because they've purposely hidden from any dissenting views) that the only way they can convince themselves they are right is by believing that anyone calling them out must be some sort of paid secret agent, sent on a mission to argue with their reddit comments.

The unfortunate aspect of that is that there are environmental issues with the pesticides that go along with GMOs that should be addressed, but are being ignored because of the misguided focus of the AntiGMO folks.

So you are saying that sueing a co.pany over a proven nonharmful substance if fine because decades ago the paid people due to a completely unrelated substance that was known to be toxic? What kind of idiotic logic do you use?

Please post a single study that shows an increased risk of cancer in humans. You wont find one, because every legitamite study so far has shown no increased risk. You are just assuming there is a study because it supports what you want to believe, rather then what there is evidence for.

They sell chemicals, a lot of chemicals have a toxicity limit. Even organic pesticides can be toxic if enough is used. Just because idiots over use a chemical doesn't mean Monsanto advised or directed them to.

You don't have to trust Monsanto, but when NGO's and Government bodies both say glyphosate is a non-carcinogen then maybe it's time to find the evidence before you pick up the pitchfork.

Has anyone else noticed that all the Mosanto threads on this site look like the vaccine threads? God, what happened to you, Reddit? This site used to be so much fun. Now it's just full of sockpuppets and PR people. Fuck.

Oh yea, we have been here for years and noticed the change. I am worried about those who join reddit now, it will be that much harder for them to see the truth. Alternative research/media is our winning front at the moment, I think.

GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science - "Monsanto enlisted Condé Nast publications" - "a quick perusing of GMO articles over the past year elicits suspicion that Monsanto’s and Condé Nast’s relationship did not end."

Reddit regularly allows brigading of any post or comments which cast Monsanto, 'Roundup', or GMO's in a negative light. Anyone who is too effective in arguing against GMO's etc. will be shadowbanned.

Subreddits like /r/GMOmyths - are full of Monsanto shills spreading pro-Monsanto myths, and denouncing anyone who talks about Monsanto policy and GMO dangers in general. Further, anyone who comments negatively in that subreddit about Monsanto or GMO dangers will be targeted for brigading - and if anyone tries to point out that these guys are shills and brigading, the shills will report them to reddit for harassment and get them shadowbanned.

Imagine how this would go down if it were true. Monsanto hires some folks to watch out for Monsanto negative posts on reddit, among other sites. So they need some shills. They need folks with accounts that have some age, and lots of posts. So they PM folks - asking them if they'd be interested in clicking the downvote/upvote buttons accordingly, and also asks the same folks to post rebuttals to anti Monsanto posts.

Now, can you even fucking imagine how quickly that info would be screen capped, posted, and landing on the front page?